<quoted text>He married a straight because he could not legally marry the man he loved.

How stupid does that sound, he married a straight because he couldn't marry a queer. Wow, how desperate is that? I wouldn't marry another guy just because I couldn't marry a woman that I loved. No one forced him to marry, let alone a woman that queers find repulsive. To fake his whole life!! You know he couldn't have been giving the love to the woman like she thought she would get, not even close. That's really pathetic.

<quoted text>I have friends that are married that cannot have children, now you want to deny their rights as well?

What part of my statenent.....

The bottom line is sex between men and women makes babies.

.....was unclear, or false?

I also know an older couple who are getting married that have no intention of having children, now you want to deny their rights to marry as well?

Again what was unclear or false about that statement?

I didnt realize just how far you Prop 8 supporters were willing to go, to rip asunder millions of marriages even by straight people, or am I misunderstanding you and marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with having babies?

I think you mean conjugal marriages of husband and wife.

Because if it has nothing to do with having babies then we can dispense with that entire line of arguments.Which is it?1 Marriage is specifically only for people who are going to have babies2 The intention of having babies has nothing to do with the right to marryOne or the other please and then we can continue to discuss this

Sigh..... marriage is about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex makes, babies. Not every marriage can, or will either have sex, and/or make babies. That doesn't change human reproduction and marriage as a societal means of regulating that, and sex between men and women. Men and women, regardless of procreational ability, and/or intention to have sexual relations, and have married. Why would it change now?

<quoted text>What part of my statenent.....<quoted text>.....was unclear, or false?<quoted text>Again what was unclear or false about that statement?<quoted text>I think you mean conjugal marriages of husband and wife.<quoted text>Sigh..... marriage is about the sexes, both of them, what they do, have sex, and what that sex makes, babies. Not every marriage can, or will either have sex, and/or make babies. That doesn't change human reproduction and marriage as a societal means of regulating that, and sex between men and women. Men and women, regardless of procreational ability, and/or intention to have sexual relations, and have married. Why would it change now?

so what I have gathered here is that for you, marriage is only about making babies. Fortunately you dont get to define marriage for everyone else.

I have news for you, there are already too many babies in the world. I have some more news, many couples dont have children, I know quite a few people that married later in life, or second marriages that have no children from that marriage.

Are you belittling their marriages? Do you deem them less than other marriages? If you do, then I dont particularly care what you deem anymore.

Marriage is a commitment between 2 people, regardless if they will have children or not. You are opposed to this commitment in same sex circumstances, I am not. I believe this is the land of the free, where equality, freedom and justice trump religion, trump tradition, and certainly will trump the view of people that think only having children is what a marriage is all about.

I can tell you right now, children was not the reason I got married, and I would have married her regardless of if we would have children or not, and I dont particularly care what others thing of that.

I have witnessed the happiness of two senior citizen men who where finally able to come out of the closet after the death of the wife of one of them. The man who had been married had a lesbian granddaughter.That made me wonder if it was wise to continue to force the idea of only marriage of 'one man and one woman'. One of those could be gay. It would be better for society for gays to marry each other rather than marry straight partners and pass on whatever trait produces homosexuality. However if homosexuals want to raise their own children,(the instinct to be a parent is separate from sexual orientation). They should be allowed to adopt.They hire a surrogate woman to bare their child. or use a sperm bank so one of them can be the biological mother.

It would be more ideal if these two senior gays just stuck to blowing each other at the YMCA and kept to themselves. Sounds like YOU want a three-way with them, Dorn.

<quoted text>He married his wife, not a "straight". He must have loved her on some level. The state recognized their marriage because it composition was no different than any other marriage of husband and wife.

P.s. I didnt mean to jump on your case earlier, but the whole "marriage is for making babies" argument just pisses me off. It could not be farther from the truth.

One of my daughters is incapable of having children for medical reasons, and to think anyone would belittle her marriage to her husband because "marriage is only about making babies" makes me what to hit someone... and I am a peaceful person... but go after my kids and the hair raises on the back of my neck.

I know that was not your intent, but there is a HUGE hole is the "marriage is for making babies" argument.

It is a lame excuse of an argument.

None of my children happen to be gay, but I would be fully supportive of any of them if they happened to be. I do have an extended family member that is gay, and she got married before prop 8 and is one of the 18,000 legally married same sex couples in California, and I applaud them and wish them well.

sex changes ...the undrelineg is SSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEXXXXX CHANGES.....TWO GUYS GET A SEX CHANGE ...THEIR STILL ATTRACTED TO WOMAN..........SAN FRANCISCO IS WAY ADHEAD OF ITS TIME..........REMEMBER HOW MANY CRAZIES HAVE COME THRU SAN FRANCISCO..........JIM JONES AND HIS CULT..........ANTON LAVEY AND HIS FRIENDS.........SO WHY DID SAN FRANCISCO OFFER FREE SEX CHANGES.......WELL IN INDIA THEY ABDUCT YOU AND GIVE YOU A SEDX CHANGE ..DOES ANYONE FROM ASIA LIVE OR MOVED TO SANFRANCISCO...LOOK UP ARTICLES ON FLASE MEMORY SYNDROME.....LOOK AFRICAN CULTS......STEALING PEOPLE BANK ACCOUNTS GIVE THESE PEOPLE MONEY TO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY..........THINK ABOUT IT

<quoted text>yup.are you actually trying to pretend I would write something like that?you are VILE and a total FRAUD.

The person I responded to wrote that to me.... and you jumped in to call me vile. See what happens in your manic zeal? But then you always did have a problem following the narrative. It must be murder for you in a courtroom.

sex changes ...the undrelineg is SSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEXXXXX CHANGES.....TWO GUYS GET A SEX CHANGE ...THEIR STILL ATTRACTED TO WOMAN..........SAN FRANCISCO IS WAY ADHEAD OF ITS TIME..........REMEMBER HOW MANY CRAZIES HAVE COME THRU SAN FRANCISCO..........JIM JONES AND HIS CULT..........ANTON LAVEY AND HIS FRIENDS.........SO WHY DID SAN FRANCISCO OFFER FREE SEX CHANGES.......WELL IN INDIA THEY ABDUCT YOU AND GIVE YOU A SEDX CHANGE ..DOES ANYONE FROM ASIA LIVE OR MOVED TO SANFRANCISCO...LOOK UP ARTICLES ON FLASE MEMORY SYNDROME.....LOOK AFRICAN CULTS......STEALING PEOPLE BANK ACCOUNTS GIVE THESE PEOPLE MONEY TO ACCESS TECHNOLOGY..........THINK ABOUT IT

Err...

....you seem to be the only screaming out loud crazee bastard here buddy....LOL!!!!

KiMare wrote:<quoted text>So now you shift from 'natural' to 'only', which further proves you are naturally stupid and only full of BS.You tried to insinuate that gay couples are a building block. Now you try again. Just a heads up, gay couples are never a building block within their relationship.Procreation is limited to heterosexual couples. That core element of marriage has never changed. In every culture throughout human history, the constraint of marriage has been the natural and best setting for human fruit. All other options are considered default settings. Most often by the mother, father and children.Funny you should troll attack with ass assertions. Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. That's not my head up there...Bazinga!<quoted text>I've seen old forklifts that haven't backed up as much as you.Of course I brought up natural and only. They described perfectly what I was saying. You tried to discredit my use of them and failed miserably.Of course gays can procreate. Which is why I specifically said they can't withing their relationship. They have to fake being heterosexuals. Duh.Where did I qualify anal sex as only between homosexuals? Do you not have one valid point without twisting what I say? Do you understand how demeaning that is to your cause???Which brings us to the unhealthy nature of oral sex. Certainly oral contact with sewage orifices has an inherent demeaning nature. Most rational people would think so... But then again, you think if some heterosexuals engage in an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning act, that makes it okay for homosexuals...How old are you?Smile.

Speaking of backing. You really ought to be prepared to back what you say. Clearly you're not...

Where did you qualify anal sex and homosexuals? You've obsessed over it ad nauseum in here, dum dum.

You haven't given any details about the demeaning nature of oral sex that are valid, dum dum. What you have done is display your ignorance, again. Don't confuse harmful with demeaning. They're both negative terms, certainly, but you've attempted without any real knowledge, to claim oral sex is harmful. Give us a list of pathogenic bacteria found in the human vagina or penile urethra that are not found in the oral cavity that are pathogenic. Good hygiene will do more to prevent disease than avoiding orogenital contact.

Now that you've set yourself up to fail miserably at proving harm (and you will), tell us what specifically about oral sex is demeaning? Saying stupid stuff on the internet is demeaning. So your self demeaning ways ought to embarrass you on a regular basis. You're too stupid to realise this so you get off scott free. At least in your own sad little pea brain you do. The rest of us are in great pain splitting our sides open laughing at your stupidity.

Since you're asking me my age, why don't you state how old you are? You really do present as a rather immature little turd. The name you post under (or the reasoning behind it), and the altering of a latin term like ad homoan. Those are quite sophomoric.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.